Abstract
Purpose:
To present an economic evaluation of endovascular versus open surgical repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA).
Methods:
Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is currently being appraised by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. To aid in this appraisal, a health economic model developed to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of EVAR for elective treatment of nonruptured AAAs versus OSR was used for an analysis in the emergency setting. The base case data on 730 patients undergoing EVAR was extracted from our recently published 22- study meta-analysis of 7040 patients presenting with acute
Results:
EVAR dominated OSR in the base case analysis, with a mean cumulative cost/patient of £17,422 ($26,133) for EVAR and £18,930 ($28,395) for OSR [-£1508 ($2262) difference]. The mean quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)/patient was 3.09 for EVAR versus 2.49 for OSR (0.64 difference). EVAR was cost-effective compared with OSR at a threshold value of £20,000 to £30,000 ($30,000-$45,000)/QALY. In no single combination tested did open surgical repair provide the patient with more QALYs than EVAR. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results were most sensitive to length of hospital and intensive care stays, use of blood products, and the cost of the EVAR device, which were the main cost drivers.
Conclusion:
While the UK's National Institute for Clinical Excellence does not set an absolute limit at which treatments would not be funded, £30,000 ($45,000) is generally regarded as the upper limit of acceptability. At this level, there is almost a 100% probability that EVAR is a cost-effective treatment for ruptured AAA.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
